That last bit is the dark ages myth, mostly created in the 19th century.
The middle ages were way better than is commonly suggested. Aside from a couple of major epidemics, but we’ve recently seen that we’re not immune to that.
O yeah and quite a few warmongering autocrats, about territory and religion. We’ve risen above that too, haven’t we?
Yes, for the average citizen. Pottery in Britain didn’t return to pre-Roman standards for 300 years. Farming tools and techniques in Western Europe would not recover for some 500, and even then only with the arrival of Islam in Spain. Kitchen utensils in peasant housing in rural Italy saw a sharp decline that would not recover for 700 years, and the quality of housing itself not for almost 1000. That’s not even getting into the non-archeological side of things, questioning the exact impact of trade, security, legal systems, widespread literacy…
It’s all a bit reasoned backwards, isn’t it. I mean the marvels of Roman technology were grand. But the decline of kitchen utensils and the quality of pottery -like most archeology- is a bit dependant on survival bias.
The only ones that were pining for the Roman era were leaders like Charlemagne, who wanted the title. Literacy wasn’t so well spread in Roman times either. One could say that the monestary system did more fore literacy throughout Europe than most Romans did. For most parts we’re looking at the very elites of roman civilization housing for the poor was abominable. We only started caring about Roman times when we re-discovered their books in the renaissance, most of which were recovered through the Arab world, which peaked in the Middle ages in terms of enlightenment.
It isn’t all civilization-esque, where there is a score kept of who’s the most advanced.
But they must’ve suffered with their underpar crockery for sure…
That last bit is the dark ages myth, mostly created in the 19th century.
The middle ages were way better than is commonly suggested. Aside from a couple of major epidemics, but we’ve recently seen that we’re not immune to that.
O yeah and quite a few warmongering autocrats, about territory and religion. We’ve risen above that too, haven’t we?
::: spoiler
We haven’t
:::
No.
The Dark Ages myth is separate from the idea that the fall of the Roman Empire negatively impacted Europe in a massive way.
For whom though? For the average citizen in Europe there wouldn’t really have been a gibsonian fall.
What’s the massive negative impact you’re taking about?
Yes, for the average citizen. Pottery in Britain didn’t return to pre-Roman standards for 300 years. Farming tools and techniques in Western Europe would not recover for some 500, and even then only with the arrival of Islam in Spain. Kitchen utensils in peasant housing in rural Italy saw a sharp decline that would not recover for 700 years, and the quality of housing itself not for almost 1000. That’s not even getting into the non-archeological side of things, questioning the exact impact of trade, security, legal systems, widespread literacy…
It’s all a bit reasoned backwards, isn’t it. I mean the marvels of Roman technology were grand. But the decline of kitchen utensils and the quality of pottery -like most archeology- is a bit dependant on survival bias.
The only ones that were pining for the Roman era were leaders like Charlemagne, who wanted the title. Literacy wasn’t so well spread in Roman times either. One could say that the monestary system did more fore literacy throughout Europe than most Romans did. For most parts we’re looking at the very elites of roman civilization housing for the poor was abominable. We only started caring about Roman times when we re-discovered their books in the renaissance, most of which were recovered through the Arab world, which peaked in the Middle ages in terms of enlightenment.
It isn’t all civilization-esque, where there is a score kept of who’s the most advanced.
But they must’ve suffered with their underpar crockery for sure…